The Xbox is definitely a generation ahead, compared to the Playstation 2 at least.
Wow. PS2 initial release date was March 4, 2000. The Xbox initial release date was November 15, 2001. That's a full 20 month spread.
BTW, in related news, Intel plans to release the Pentium 5 (Pentium Squared) by Q1 2004. It will be 20% slower than the current P4. Tailor made for all of us who believe that newer hardware will be less powerful that our older workhorses.:P
I've played a bit with GCC in my time, and what this benchmark demonstrates is the ineptitude of the reviewers to take into account several issues that aren't covered in their article.
1. They used as the marker for GCC performance a gcc 2.95.3 version compiling a 2.4 series kernel.
Obviously, this is like telling the cook that he has to prepare a twelve course meal with only a Bunsen burner. Linux 2.4 kernels are notorious for being extremely slow on anything below the (bastardized depending on your view) version 2.96 of gcc. I'm not at all surprised at their results, considering that the Intel compiler is optimized for the setup being used to run these tests. Personally, I'm surprised that GCC 2.95 even compiled the kernel...
2. They did not indicate if GCC was recompiled with any of the x86 optimizations.
The default GCC package usually comes compiled with no optimizations whatsoever. I'm not exactly familiar with SuSE 7.3, so I can't say for sure what optimizations they put into their compiler package. However, most distros still include the gcc compiler to emphasize compatability over speed. Let's see that Intel compiler work on SPARC or a PowerPC. I betcha it won't.
IMHO, this benchmark is like comparing a Ferrari to a bicycle and trying to determine which one can make the quarter-mile first. The answer is quite obvious...
But what I find ever more interesting is that an open source magazine is reviewing a closed source product, and making the glaring oversights that I've just begun to cover above...
If your company was administering a ccTLD and ICANN comes knocking at your door for money when they can't make any assurances of your ccTLD being served to the rest of the world, why should you pay them?
To make an analogy, ICANN is to the Internet like the UN is to an international government; they are both generally ineffective but continuously demanding an ever increasing sum of money to be able to join the party.
The simple fact is that ICANN can't... (make any assurances) because they ultimately can't step in and takeover the root servers. Otherwise, they'll find themselves in a bigger controversy. Mind you, ICANN is no stranger to controversy.
I have to admit, I find the attitudes of the people described in this article hard to swallow. I can't imagine life without broadband; I consider it as vital as electricity.
To put it simply, if you don't have any experience with broadband, you probably won't have as great a desire to get it. It the same with all other technology, goods, etc.
When the big broadband rollout was occuring in Canada, the providers had booths in malls to let people try out broadband internet. Some people got hooked right in those booths. They could sign up right on the spot.
Mind you, some people won't sign up, especially if they hear that the provider is lax at providing any service to their potential customers...
Well, the article does have one point right. The Canadian Government has been greatly involved in pushing broadband in Canada (which is why it comparatively cheap compared to the US), but there are several factors that come into play as to why the US isn't on the bandwagon.
In Canada, the government has basically subsidized the funding of broadband (cable and DSL primarily). The smaller guys can offer competition under the same rules that the big guys get, so if the small ISP leases lines from the big telco to offer broadband service, the telco can't squeeze the life out of the small ISP by overcharging. The small ISP also qualifies under the same rules as the big telco.
In the US, the government has basically left broadband to the open market. Telcos resistance is a big factor here.
Large telcos only upgrade their equipment as they see fit, and usually only in big centers first. Smaller telcos simply can't afford the initial investment into broadband infrastructure.
Telcos don't necessarily want to compete with themselves. Why offer a cheap broadband connection when you offer the same bandwidth with a much more lucrative T1?
If a smaller ISP tries to get into the market, the big telco can charge the smaller ISP whatever the market can bear (and even more) to lease the lines, essentially cutting any profit margins from smaller broadband offerings.
Unfortunately, the approach the US has used basically has little or no ROI (unless you want to pay $100+ US on broadband, which most consumers won't pay).
And while the article points the finger to content providers, I'm sure that they do contribute partly to the problem.
How do you avoid those sweaty mouse hands after playing a game of Quake for a couple of hours?
Personally, I avoid the problem altogether by using a trackball...
And that is no joke. Not only do I find it much better to play quake, but now I only have to worry about a sweaty thumb, because its a thumbwheel trackball...
Use something else than Surepay. If it can't do what you need it to do, don't think you can easily throw a band-aid on to fix the whole thing.
While I can't be specific, I have had the fortune (or misfortune) of working with an e-commerce company. We had a golden rule w/ respect to storing credit card numbers. If you have a system to store credit card numbers in order to be able to reproduce them at a later date which uses a public info system (such as a website, etc.) the credit card numbers are vulnerable to someone stealing them.
Trust me. You'll never find a sure way of keeping that credit card number secure. You can say "I'll use encryption, store them (credit card numbers) on a secure server, blah blah blah". They won't be.
And I probably would trust a full end to end solution either. I just wish I can see the look on the face of a salesman who tries pitching his secure product when it's credit card numbers end up showing up in a Google search results page...
Well, I've managed to get further into the game, and I can understand why they got rid of ATB.
Some of the boss battles do require some intelligent choices, especially with regards to replacing party members with reserves during battle. With turn based, you have a better idea of when you want to do substitutions. If a character is in danger, you have a good idea if you should bring in a reserve or try to heal.
It's especially useful when using Lulu (trying to avoid spoilers). She starts in a Black Magic area of the sphere grid. With a low HP maximum and no quick way to improve that stat, she nearly requires constant healing at the beginning of the game.
So, while I can't gauge how much of a difference in difficulty it makes, I'm glad that ATB is gone. Especially considering that they removed the pause feature during a battle.
Use the RIAA's tactic. Request that they send you (in writing) a complete list of all the players that are/will be compatible with the so called "Protected CDs".
Unfortunately, I don't have a "standard" CD player. My car has a CD/MP3 combo player, I use my DVD/CD combo unit in my entertainment system, and I have a CD-Rom drive in my computer. Does that mean I have to spend for another player just to listen to Universal's CDs?
Salesperson comes to initial agreement with client about a product.
Salesperson contacts Software Department and finds out that product doesn't exist.
Salesperson diplomatically alerts client to that effect (essentially turning product into project).
Salesperson initiates project with Software Department director and sets a firm deadline based on estimates from company.
Developers begin working on project.
Problems crop up; appears project may run a little late.
Company hires or assigns a project manager to try to put project back on time.
Project manager and Software Director send mixed signals to development team, causing a waste in time and further delays.
Project manager makes a final projection of delivery, appears to be far later than expected.
Company replaces Software Director due to delays in project.
Developers become less efficient due to uncertainty in company.
New Software Director and Project Manager make compromises of project to reduce the delays.
Project is eventually completed. Project manager is assigned to new project or leaves company.
Go to step 1...
Some companies actually do business this way. It scares the hell out of you if you are the client, but it is even scarier if you are working for the company in question.
...there 'obsolete' PII is actually perfectly capable of doing all the things they use their PC for and that only graphics people and the hardest of hardcore gamers actually need 1.5 to 2GHz.
That is true for now, with emphasis on the here and now. Otherwise, that statement can be similarly outdated by statements such as B. Gates famous "640K ought to be enough for anybody."
People who want squeeze out the extra processing cycles probably won't mind paying the premium prices. And I don't think the chip makers will mind taking the extra money, especially considering that about 6 months down the road, they will probably need to drop the prices to maintain sales. Simple laws of economics.
From the article, I don't think she is necessarily criticizing digital photography itself, but rather the use of the technology.
... because of storage issues on the camera, he will have to delete some of those images as he goes along.
Cameras come with varying amounts of storage (just like the rolls of film for a traditional camera). We can't blame the technology if the photographer isn't adequately prepared with the right tools and the right amount of storage.
While most professional photographers like to use "professional equipment", I find it odd that many photographers going to digital technology use equipment made for "Joe Consumer". Maybe that should factor into West's criticism.
It seems that any research by Felten & Co. would be covered under (3), (4), (6), and (7). Thus, isn't the DoJ's motion for dimissial justified?
Unfortunately, those terms are so vague that they are open to interpretation. Any good lawyer could easily twist the meaning of these terms to suit his/her client(s).
The courts don't have any preceding judgements on the books, which IMO doesn't justify a motion for dismissal. The judgement could go either way, and the DoJ shouldn't make a motion on this unless they had a clear view of the outcome of the case.
While I agree that IPv6 will fix some problems with addressing devices on the net, there are bigger problems to deal with first.
Routing network traffic effectively is a far greater concern, especially with the major backbone providers. In the last few years, Internet traffic has grown around 300% per year. It is very difficult to get a cost-effective solution to the routing problem. The industry is already looking at terabit routers in order to keep up with today's demand for bandwidth.
And considering that over 50% of the routable network traffic (300000+ routes in total) are class C networks (24 significant bits), the biggest problem is not necessarily the bandwidth; the key problem is being able to process the routing of that data.
Considering that IPv6 will put a lot more networks up with more significant bits to indicate the routing of that data, routers will have to become a lot more powerful before they can even begin to handle the load of IPv6. If the major backbones decided to implement IPv6 today, the routers on these backbones would slow to a crawl, the net being virtually useless.
So, until router technology matures to meet the potential demands, IPv6 will look good on paper, and nothing more.
While this may not be the most popular opinion, I'm siding with Brazil on this. Roche is going for a quick money grab, plain and simple.
The drug "nelfinavir" isn't a cure for AIDS. It is only supposed to slow/stop the progress of the disease in the body. A patient who is on the drug has to stay on it for the rest of their life; even an economics 101 student knows that you'll eventually pull in more money with more lifetime customers by lowering the price of the drug rather than let a good portion of your potential clientele die because you are trying to gouge them.
And I doubt anyone can successfully argue that Roche doesn't know this. They've been in business for over 100 years.
Patent issues aside, it is undisputed that these people are infected with HIV, and there is no solution to make it otherwise. However, the drug can be produced by someone else; there is a solution other than Roche to produce the drug. Maybe the company should have realized this when they were ultimately denying these potential patients of their lives...
And while patents are supposed to protect the innovations of a corporation, I don't think that any country would put the rights of the corporation ahead of the individual's right to live.
what was the RIAA's real intent? Did they simply retract their threat to sue for the sake of PR, or what it something deeper?
The bluff smells of censorship, IMO. It is a warning to every other research group who will walk the fine line that is the DMCA that they are being watched. The scrutiny serves the role of censorship, and the threat of legal action will remain until the researchers ask if they can publish.
I seriously don't know what is worse. Not being able to publish at all, or having to pander to the legally privileged (thanks to the DMCA) and beg "Please, please, can I publish my paper?". In either case, Big Brother wins.
If you circumvent the DMCA to read a document about how to reverse engineer something (circumventing the DMCA yet again), do you get thrown in jail twice?
You can argue that eEye did the right thing by publicizing this vulnerability, but I personally am getting a little tired of them adding weapons to hackers' arsenals.
I could equally argue that security is a choice; would you use or endorse a product that has had a bad rep with regards to security and the necessary actions required to correct security flaws?
Considering that the vulnerability that Code Red exploits could have been fixed months before, I as a system administrator myself have to ask the following...
Do these administrators even bother to read security advisories with respect to the products they use?
Did they bother try to patch their systems?
If they didn't bother to try patching their systems, did they take some other form of corrective action to avoid the potential problems?
If you were to survey those affected by Code Red, you would probably get a lot of "NO" responses.
These are probably the same individuals or companies that don't take security seriously. Security is a lot more than just applying patches whenever vulnerabilities are found. It should influence how your network is designed, how the services are partitioned on that network, and what information is allowed to travel in and out of your network, etc.
<plug for egress filtering>
If people actually took the time to look at their network architectures, they probably would be hard pressed to find a valid reason as to why their web servers would need to initiate a connection to another web server outside of their network.
</plug for egress filtering>
I therefore submit that full disclosure of the IIS vulnerability had no real influence as to the spread of Code Red. This problem could have been avoided by applying a fix, but some parties made a choice to do nothing. The spread of Code Red is a realized consequence of that choice.
Sorry, but a milliamp is NOT measly. Imagine enough transistors to make a processor (10s of millions), and suddenly you've got in excess of 10,000 amps being drawn.
I'm sorry. You must be assuming that each transistor is in parallel with each other, which any electronics 101 student will tell you that the chip is about the equivalent of a space heater in terms of computational ability. Not to mention the fact that it will probably blow the grid for your neighborhood.
But there is one important point to notice. Responding to spam in order to be removed from the list generally confirms that the mail address is being read resulting in more spam.
My concern is how much concern must I show to Microsoft about this feature. Will I have to show my concern by shelling out $$$$ to M$ to get that metatag that I will have to add to my websites? Will this tag be searched by Microsoft's web crawlers in order to send me propaganda on how useful the "Smart Tags" feature is? What ultimately concerns/frustrates me is not about these issues that I know are going to be a pain; it is the ones that I don't know of yet that concern me the most.
I think the point here is that it is in Microsoft's best interest to have this feature in their browser, and it will be up to everyone else to opt-in to disable this utter annoyance.
Hmm. But the article doesn't comment one important factor.
There is far less hardware for Mac OS X to support than its Win2K counterpart. So, simply because there are far less hardware profiles for Mac OS X to look at, it is simply blind luck that Mac OS X will get it right [hardware configuration] more often than Win2K.
Well, as a person who has endured some responsibility for student government initiatives during my studies, I can tell you that you probably have little or no recourse whatsoever if you decide to fight this.
It has been my experience that most people, who have more authority than you at a university, will tend to use extreme measures if you become a proverbial "itch that they must scratch". They will use any possible excuse to get rid of the problem (as I'm sure you are experiencing now), including the well famous "code of conduct" that barely any student can understand completely without an army of lawyers.
Unfortunately, this sounds more like a political battle, rather than a legal one. I would doubt very much that you can challenge them legally; most universities tend to have you waive your rights to pretty much everything that there is a law for, just by enrolling as a student.
My bit of advice is to concede early. If you can make their response appear extreme, you might come out of this situation with only the loss of the site. That is far better than wasting all that time and money by facing expulsion.
Note: I'm not defending academics at all in this statement. Hypothetically speaking, if I stayed in that environment for 4+ years, I'm pretty sure that my social skills would be so bad that I would want to squash away students that pissed me off.
Looking at this quote from Scott McNealy's editorial...
Properly administered, the online environment offers more privacy protections, not fewer. Online, you can encrypt things and provide conditional access.
... makes me shiver. That statement hinges on a key condition, that being a system that is "properly administered".
My experience in infosec is that very few systems are properly administered. It takes a very large crew and a lot of infrastructure to maintain a public records system. It only takes one single oversight or mistake to "spoil the party".
Until government and the private sector can systematically demonstrate their ability to properly administer electronic information systems, paper will be more secure.
Slashdot Mirror
Only as Tom's Hardware can deliver...
The Xbox is definitely a generation ahead, compared to the Playstation 2 at least.
Wow. PS2 initial release date was March 4, 2000. The Xbox initial release date was November 15, 2001. That's a full 20 month spread.
BTW, in related news, Intel plans to release the Pentium 5 (Pentium Squared) by Q1 2004. It will be 20% slower than the current P4. Tailor made for all of us who believe that newer hardware will be less powerful that our older workhorses. :P
Or this graphic. Looks like someone got some buttons from a phone but forgot to include the middle column.
It would really suck if you couldn't input the digits 2,5,8 and 0.
I've played a bit with GCC in my time, and what this benchmark demonstrates is the ineptitude of the reviewers to take into account several issues that aren't covered in their article.
1. They used as the marker for GCC performance a gcc 2.95.3 version compiling a 2.4 series kernel.
Obviously, this is like telling the cook that he has to prepare a twelve course meal with only a Bunsen burner. Linux 2.4 kernels are notorious for being extremely slow on anything below the (bastardized depending on your view) version 2.96 of gcc. I'm not at all surprised at their results, considering that the Intel compiler is optimized for the setup being used to run these tests. Personally, I'm surprised that GCC 2.95 even compiled the kernel...
2. They did not indicate if GCC was recompiled with any of the x86 optimizations.
The default GCC package usually comes compiled with no optimizations whatsoever. I'm not exactly familiar with SuSE 7.3, so I can't say for sure what optimizations they put into their compiler package. However, most distros still include the gcc compiler to emphasize compatability over speed. Let's see that Intel compiler work on SPARC or a PowerPC. I betcha it won't.
IMHO, this benchmark is like comparing a Ferrari to a bicycle and trying to determine which one can make the quarter-mile first. The answer is quite obvious...
But what I find ever more interesting is that an open source magazine is reviewing a closed source product, and making the glaring oversights that I've just begun to cover above...
Yes, it is about money.
If your company was administering a ccTLD and ICANN comes knocking at your door for money when they can't make any assurances of your ccTLD being served to the rest of the world, why should you pay them?
To make an analogy, ICANN is to the Internet like the UN is to an international government; they are both generally ineffective but continuously demanding an ever increasing sum of money to be able to join the party.
The simple fact is that ICANN can't... (make any assurances) because they ultimately can't step in and takeover the root servers. Otherwise, they'll find themselves in a bigger controversy. Mind you, ICANN is no stranger to controversy.
I have to admit, I find the attitudes of the people described in this article hard to swallow. I can't imagine life without broadband; I consider it as vital as electricity.
To put it simply, if you don't have any experience with broadband, you probably won't have as great a desire to get it. It the same with all other technology, goods, etc.
When the big broadband rollout was occuring in Canada, the providers had booths in malls to let people try out broadband internet. Some people got hooked right in those booths. They could sign up right on the spot.
Mind you, some people won't sign up, especially if they hear that the provider is lax at providing any service to their potential customers...
Well, the article does have one point right. The Canadian Government has been greatly involved in pushing broadband in Canada (which is why it comparatively cheap compared to the US), but there are several factors that come into play as to why the US isn't on the bandwagon.
In Canada, the government has basically subsidized the funding of broadband (cable and DSL primarily). The smaller guys can offer competition under the same rules that the big guys get, so if the small ISP leases lines from the big telco to offer broadband service, the telco can't squeeze the life out of the small ISP by overcharging. The small ISP also qualifies under the same rules as the big telco.
In the US, the government has basically left broadband to the open market. Telcos resistance is a big factor here.
Unfortunately, the approach the US has used basically has little or no ROI (unless you want to pay $100+ US on broadband, which most consumers won't pay).
And while the article points the finger to content providers, I'm sure that they do contribute partly to the problem.
How do you avoid those sweaty mouse hands after playing a game of Quake for a couple of hours?
Personally, I avoid the problem altogether by using a trackball...
And that is no joke. Not only do I find it much better to play quake, but now I only have to worry about a sweaty thumb, because its a thumbwheel trackball...
Use something else than Surepay. If it can't do what you need it to do, don't think you can easily throw a band-aid on to fix the whole thing.
While I can't be specific, I have had the fortune (or misfortune) of working with an e-commerce company. We had a golden rule w/ respect to storing credit card numbers. If you have a system to store credit card numbers in order to be able to reproduce them at a later date which uses a public info system (such as a website, etc.) the credit card numbers are vulnerable to someone stealing them.
Trust me. You'll never find a sure way of keeping that credit card number secure. You can say "I'll use encryption, store them (credit card numbers) on a secure server, blah blah blah". They won't be.
And I probably would trust a full end to end solution either. I just wish I can see the look on the face of a salesman who tries pitching his secure product when it's credit card numbers end up showing up in a Google search results page...
Well, I've managed to get further into the game, and I can understand why they got rid of ATB.
Some of the boss battles do require some intelligent choices, especially with regards to replacing party members with reserves during battle. With turn based, you have a better idea of when you want to do substitutions. If a character is in danger, you have a good idea if you should bring in a reserve or try to heal.
It's especially useful when using Lulu (trying to avoid spoilers). She starts in a Black Magic area of the sphere grid. With a low HP maximum and no quick way to improve that stat, she nearly requires constant healing at the beginning of the game.
So, while I can't gauge how much of a difference in difficulty it makes, I'm glad that ATB is gone. Especially considering that they removed the pause feature during a battle.
Use the RIAA's tactic. Request that they send you (in writing) a complete list of all the players that are/will be compatible with the so called "Protected CDs".
Unfortunately, I don't have a "standard" CD player. My car has a CD/MP3 combo player, I use my DVD/CD combo unit in my entertainment system, and I have a CD-Rom drive in my computer. Does that mean I have to spend for another player just to listen to Universal's CDs?
Sorry, my wallet is staying closed on this one.
Some companies actually do business this way. It scares the hell out of you if you are the client, but it is even scarier if you are working for the company in question.
That is true for now, with emphasis on the here and now. Otherwise, that statement can be similarly outdated by statements such as B. Gates famous "640K ought to be enough for anybody."
People who want squeeze out the extra processing cycles probably won't mind paying the premium prices. And I don't think the chip makers will mind taking the extra money, especially considering that about 6 months down the road, they will probably need to drop the prices to maintain sales. Simple laws of economics.
From the article, I don't think she is necessarily criticizing digital photography itself, but rather the use of the technology.
Cameras come with varying amounts of storage (just like the rolls of film for a traditional camera). We can't blame the technology if the photographer isn't adequately prepared with the right tools and the right amount of storage.
While most professional photographers like to use "professional equipment", I find it odd that many photographers going to digital technology use equipment made for "Joe Consumer". Maybe that should factor into West's criticism.
Funny, I can picture the relationship that they speak of now...
Windows user: Why does my computer no longer work?
Microsoft: Sorry, you'll need to bend over some more...
It seems that any research by Felten & Co. would be covered under (3), (4), (6), and (7). Thus, isn't the DoJ's motion for dimissial justified?
Unfortunately, those terms are so vague that they are open to interpretation. Any good lawyer could easily twist the meaning of these terms to suit his/her client(s).
The courts don't have any preceding judgements on the books, which IMO doesn't justify a motion for dismissal. The judgement could go either way, and the DoJ shouldn't make a motion on this unless they had a clear view of the outcome of the case.
While I agree that IPv6 will fix some problems with addressing devices on the net, there are bigger problems to deal with first.
Routing network traffic effectively is a far greater concern, especially with the major backbone providers. In the last few years, Internet traffic has grown around 300% per year. It is very difficult to get a cost-effective solution to the routing problem. The industry is already looking at terabit routers in order to keep up with today's demand for bandwidth.
And considering that over 50% of the routable network traffic (300000+ routes in total) are class C networks (24 significant bits), the biggest problem is not necessarily the bandwidth; the key problem is being able to process the routing of that data.
Considering that IPv6 will put a lot more networks up with more significant bits to indicate the routing of that data, routers will have to become a lot more powerful before they can even begin to handle the load of IPv6. If the major backbones decided to implement IPv6 today, the routers on these backbones would slow to a crawl, the net being virtually useless.
So, until router technology matures to meet the potential demands, IPv6 will look good on paper, and nothing more.
While this may not be the most popular opinion, I'm siding with Brazil on this. Roche is going for a quick money grab, plain and simple.
The drug "nelfinavir" isn't a cure for AIDS. It is only supposed to slow/stop the progress of the disease in the body. A patient who is on the drug has to stay on it for the rest of their life; even an economics 101 student knows that you'll eventually pull in more money with more lifetime customers by lowering the price of the drug rather than let a good portion of your potential clientele die because you are trying to gouge them.
And I doubt anyone can successfully argue that Roche doesn't know this. They've been in business for over 100 years.
Patent issues aside, it is undisputed that these people are infected with HIV, and there is no solution to make it otherwise. However, the drug can be produced by someone else; there is a solution other than Roche to produce the drug. Maybe the company should have realized this when they were ultimately denying these potential patients of their lives...
And while patents are supposed to protect the innovations of a corporation, I don't think that any country would put the rights of the corporation ahead of the individual's right to live.
what was the RIAA's real intent? Did they simply retract their threat to sue for the sake of PR, or what it something deeper?
The bluff smells of censorship, IMO. It is a warning to every other research group who will walk the fine line that is the DMCA that they are being watched. The scrutiny serves the role of censorship, and the threat of legal action will remain until the researchers ask if they can publish.
I seriously don't know what is worse. Not being able to publish at all, or having to pander to the legally privileged (thanks to the DMCA) and beg "Please, please, can I publish my paper?". In either case, Big Brother wins.
If you circumvent the DMCA to read a document about how to reverse engineer something (circumventing the DMCA yet again), do you get thrown in jail twice?
You can argue that eEye did the right thing by publicizing this vulnerability, but I personally am getting a little tired of them adding weapons to hackers' arsenals.
I could equally argue that security is a choice; would you use or endorse a product that has had a bad rep with regards to security and the necessary actions required to correct security flaws?
Considering that the vulnerability that Code Red exploits could have been fixed months before, I as a system administrator myself have to ask the following...
If you were to survey those affected by Code Red, you would probably get a lot of "NO" responses.
These are probably the same individuals or companies that don't take security seriously. Security is a lot more than just applying patches whenever vulnerabilities are found. It should influence how your network is designed, how the services are partitioned on that network, and what information is allowed to travel in and out of your network, etc.
<plug for egress filtering>
If people actually took the time to look at their network architectures, they probably would be hard pressed to find a valid reason as to why their web servers would need to initiate a connection to another web server outside of their network.
</plug for egress filtering>
I therefore submit that full disclosure of the IIS vulnerability had no real influence as to the spread of Code Red. This problem could have been avoided by applying a fix, but some parties made a choice to do nothing. The spread of Code Red is a realized consequence of that choice.
Sorry, but a milliamp is NOT measly. Imagine enough transistors to make a processor (10s of millions), and suddenly you've got in excess of 10,000 amps being drawn.
I'm sorry. You must be assuming that each transistor is in parallel with each other, which any electronics 101 student will tell you that the chip is about the equivalent of a space heater in terms of computational ability. Not to mention the fact that it will probably blow the grid for your neighborhood.
But there is one important point to notice. Responding to spam in order to be removed from the list generally confirms that the mail address is being read resulting in more spam.
My concern is how much concern must I show to Microsoft about this feature. Will I have to show my concern by shelling out $$$$ to M$ to get that metatag that I will have to add to my websites? Will this tag be searched by Microsoft's web crawlers in order to send me propaganda on how useful the "Smart Tags" feature is? What ultimately concerns/frustrates me is not about these issues that I know are going to be a pain; it is the ones that I don't know of yet that concern me the most.
I think the point here is that it is in Microsoft's best interest to have this feature in their browser, and it will be up to everyone else to opt-in to disable this utter annoyance.
Hmm. But the article doesn't comment one important factor.
There is far less hardware for Mac OS X to support than its Win2K counterpart. So, simply because there are far less hardware profiles for Mac OS X to look at, it is simply blind luck that Mac OS X will get it right [hardware configuration] more often than Win2K.
Well, as a person who has endured some responsibility for student government initiatives during my studies, I can tell you that you probably have little or no recourse whatsoever if you decide to fight this.
It has been my experience that most people, who have more authority than you at a university, will tend to use extreme measures if you become a proverbial "itch that they must scratch". They will use any possible excuse to get rid of the problem (as I'm sure you are experiencing now), including the well famous "code of conduct" that barely any student can understand completely without an army of lawyers.
Unfortunately, this sounds more like a political battle, rather than a legal one. I would doubt very much that you can challenge them legally; most universities tend to have you waive your rights to pretty much everything that there is a law for, just by enrolling as a student.
My bit of advice is to concede early. If you can make their response appear extreme, you might come out of this situation with only the loss of the site. That is far better than wasting all that time and money by facing expulsion.
Note: I'm not defending academics at all in this statement. Hypothetically speaking, if I stayed in that environment for 4+ years, I'm pretty sure that my social skills would be so bad that I would want to squash away students that pissed me off.
Looking at this quote from Scott McNealy's editorial...
Properly administered, the online environment offers more privacy protections, not fewer. Online, you can encrypt things and provide conditional access.
My experience in infosec is that very few systems are properly administered. It takes a very large crew and a lot of infrastructure to maintain a public records system. It only takes one single oversight or mistake to "spoil the party".
Until government and the private sector can systematically demonstrate their ability to properly administer electronic information systems, paper will be more secure.